Carlson v. Attorney General, State of California

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 14 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

LEIF THURSTON CARLSON, SR.,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

ATTORNEY GENERAL, State of
California,
Respondent.

17

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

v.

16

18

Case No. CV 11-02976 CRB

/

Now before the Court is Carlson’s request for issuance of a certificate of appealability
(“COA”). A judge shall grant a COA “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where a district court has rejected
the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is
straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Indeed, “a claim can be debatable even though every jurist of reason
might agree, after the COA has been granted and the case has received full consideration,
that petitioner will not prevail.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003).
//
//
//

1

Here, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists could debate whether the state

2

courts’ treatment of the Confrontation Clause issue warrants relief under 28 U.S.C.

3

§ 2254(d), and GRANTS a certificate of appealability as to that claim. Carlson has not

4

argued that his Speedy Trial claim warrants a COA, and this Court concludes it does not.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 29, 2013

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2011\2976\COA Order.wpd

2